ArticleBMC health services research2026
Representativeness and external comparability of the InGef research database for epidemiological studies in Germany.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClaims data from statutory health insurance (SHI) funds are increasingly used in public health research. We evaluated the representativeness and external comparability of the InGef research database (RDB), which contains anonymized claims data from approximately 10 million SHI-insured individuals in Germany, using selected disease-specific indicators.
methodsA retrospective cohort study combining cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses (2015-2023) was conducted. We assessed (1) follow-up duration, (2) demographic representativeness, and external comparability based on two complementary reference indications (3) incidence and mortality of lung cancer, and (4) prevalence and pharmaceutical treatment of bronchial asthma. All outcomes were compared with external reference data from the German Federal Statistical Office (DESTATIS), the German Centre for Cancer Registry Data (ZfKD), and the SHI Pharmaceutical Index (GKV-AI). Direct age and sex standardization was applied to ensure comparability.
resultsThe InGef-RDB showed high concordance with the general German population in terms of age and sex distribution (maximum deviation < 0.6 percentage points). 73% of all insured persons remained continuously observable over 9 years. 6.9% died and 19.5% left the database due to changes in their insurance provider, corresponding to an average annual attrition rate of approximately 2.4%. Overall mortality was slightly lower than national statistics (- 0.3 to - 0.4 percentage points). Between 2016 and 2022, the standardized asthma prevalence rose from 5,938 to 6,602 per 100,000 population, before decreasing to 5,977 per 100,000 in 2023. Monoclonal antibody prescription rates for asthma deviated by < 0.01 percentage points from SHI benchmarks. Lung cancer incidence (2016-2022) averaged 41.8 cases per 100,000 persons, closely matching ZfKD data.
conclusionsThe InGef-RDB demonstrates strong demographic alignment and good external comparability across distinct epidemiologic and health care use scenarios. Based on these evaluations, it represents a valid and reliable real-world data source for population-based epidemiological and health services research, provided that appropriate methodological adjustments are applied.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.